Fran Drescher Goes to Washington

Public Diplomacy is no longer for the few and privileged Foreign Service Officers, says John Robert Kelley. Rather it is transforming in a way to include much more of the ‘P’ in ‘PD’. According to the Figure in Kelley’s article “The New Diplomacy: Evolution of a Revolution,” actors such as NGO’s, Religious Leaders, Intelligentsia Celebrities and Private Sector have an increasingly important role in Public Diplomacy and I would add to this the public itself as well as illustrated by the implementation of Public Diplomacy 2.0 in which two way communication from the public was encouraged and seen as the new wave of PD. I agree that in this increasingly technological world there is no way you can ignore the additional actors who play a role in Public Diplomacy but as mentioned, but as Kelley himself acknowledged diplomats are as integral to the act of public diplomacy as states themselves (which are the only reason we have diplomats in there current carnation anyway). So how much stock should we put in these actors? Can they really help? All signs point to yes… in certain cases. PD strategies are becoming more contingency based (appropriately so) and so many of the things listed above will be used in conjunction with one another in order to make an overall PD strategy that a country uses. The U.S., for example, uses all of the above in some form or other. My favorite non-governmental PD move is the use of actors, and I’m not being sarcastic. At first look making someone like, I don’t know, Fran Drescher a US ambassador is not music to ones ears. However she is the ambassador for “women's issues,” which is a cheesy title but not all together a bad idea. Drescher herself went had breast cancer, which is definitely a woman’s issue and also a very emotionally and physically draining experience. Having someone who has actually been through the experience makes the connection to other women more genuine, especially for something like a disease, which does not tend to respect national borders and international rules of conduct. Therefore addressing a universal issue with someone who can be more empathetic than most is a great strategy and is the ideal example of public diplomacy through new channels. Will this program work? Only time will tell. It won’t solve all foreign policy problems but it definitely helps give a face and personality to the once solely bureaucratic machine of PD.

Sources: John Robert Kelley, "The New Diplomacy: Evolution of a Revolution," Diplomacy & Statecraft, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2010, 1-21

Cricket Diplomacy

There are many things common between India and Pakistan like, languages, literature, music, religious traditions, and thousands of years of togetherness under local rulers and competing empires. There is only one issue that despite this commonality makes them distant neighbors: the Kashmir issue.

It is the dispute over Kashmir region that sharpens differences and blurs this commonness. However, the sports of cricket, which has deep roots in the subcontinent as a cultural tradition, is one other strand that weaves the peoples of India and Pakistan together. Cashing in on this cultural tradition, leaders of the two countries have used Cricket Diplomacy to thaw iciness in their relations.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to the pleasant surprise of many, invited his Pakistani counterpart to watch the World Cup 2011 semi-final between the two countries' teams in Mohali, India, as part of Cricket Diplomacy. And Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has concurred to watch the match alongside Mr. Singh.

It is not the first time for India and Pakistan to use cricket for diplomacy; it started in early 1980s when Indian and Pakistani armed forces had been eyeball to eyeball with each other. The Indian Express newspaper says:

"Cricket diplomacy is now very much a part of Indo-Pak diplomatic tradition. In 1987, Gen. Zia ul Haque [military ruler of Pakistan] invited himself to witness a cricket match in India as part of his effort to defuse tensions following a military confrontation. Gen. Musharraf [another military ruler of Pakistan] did much the same in April 2005, when he wrangled an invitation from Dr. Singh to witness an Indo-Pak cricket match in Delhi. The talks during that visit produced the basis for a serious bilateral negotiation on resolving the dispute over Jammu & Kashmir."

In 2005, Mr. Singh told the Indian Parliament that nothing brings the people of the subcontinent together more than our love for cricket and Bollywood. His predecessor Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, before sending them to Pakistan, advised the Indian cricket players: "Dil bhi jeeto!" [Win their hearts too].

Many commentators see the Indian Prime Minister's invite a smart diplomatic initiative through cricket undertaken after India and Pakistan resumed the dialogue process stalled in November 2008 when the Indian financial capital Mumbai was hit by terrorist attacks.

One commentator has rightly pointed out the potency of Cricket Diplomacy by observing: "Overnight, the mood of the media and the people, at least in Pakistan, has turned towards India." What politicians, generals and diplomats could not achieve in years, Cricket Diplomacy has done it in ways.

It is now up to the politicians to catch on the positive public sentiments and move on normalizing relations between India and Pakistan. Public Diplomacy does not resolve thorny issues, but it does build confidence and trust between peoples of two countries. When diplomats and politicians talk to each other in an atmosphere of trust, they can reach an understanding on issues that bedevil their relations.

Diplomacy is changing!! Repeat, Diplomacy is changing and will continue to do so!!

This week’s readings pertained to transformational diplomacy. That is, the process by which traditional diplomacy is being altered due to information and communication technologies (ICTs). Anthony Deos and Geoffrey Allen Pigman articulate,

“Diplomatic communication itself has been disintermediated by global media that bring information from around the globe to policymakers and general publics alike, often in real time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Increasingly, governments seeking to implement and legitimate a foreign policy seek to commu­ nicate and promote their policies directly to the affected foreign pub­ lics (as well as domestic publics) and must be prepared to react to and act on the responses of these publics. Just as publics have come to be participants in the escalation of conflict and hostility between govern­ ments, they have come to playa role in the use of diplomacy to mediate estrangement between actors (Oer Oerian, 1987).”

While this change is very exciting and gives individuals throughout the world a voice like they have never had before, it is also terrifying. Today’s world, in terms of national security, is very different than it once was. In light of global tensions caused by terrorism such as the US embassy bombings in Kenya, 9/11, and the March 11^th bombings in Madrid, it is evident how media creates and perpetuates uncertainty in the international system based on the news story. Deos and Pigman go on to say, “there has been an increase in both number and influence of non-state actors, including multilateral institutions, global corporations, not-for-profit groups and other NGOs in the international diplomatic discourse”. The point is that more actors have more ability to render attention toward selected issues of importance. So communicating a clear identity in the midst of an overwhelming amount of information available to societies is inherently difficult because public diplomacy is constantly changing with every news update. It is relentless, which is why the more voices there are, the more fascinating, vital, and chaotic (at the same time) public diplomacy becomes. The alternative to public diplomacy, use of hard power, is simply not desired if conflicts can be calmly diffused through public diplomacy.

Public Diplomacy: not just for diplomats anymore

In reconceptualizing public diplomacy from propaganda, to soft power, and long-term communication, the actor has always been the state. The traditional roots of “diplomacy” and a realist attitude towards non-state actors has left the power of NGOs, institutions and active citizens outside the realm of public diplomacy. But that may no longer be possible, or wise, for states to do.

As Fisher wrote in “Music for the Jilted Generation,” the “practice of public diplomacy” is developing and the “barriers to entry,” like the Internet and other communications technologies, are decreasing rapidly and “this has the potential to break down the hierarchical producer and recipient relationship, and creates a means for collective action.” Fisher calls it “open source” diplomacy, where Kelley stresses the “new” public diplomacy with non-state actors, present from “take-offs” and not just the crash landings of critical strategic situations.

A state could use long-term “engagement” or relationship building techniques with the goal of increasing “social capital” with particular countries. But this takes a long time, could be expensive, might not work, and has proven itself to be very difficult to sway policymakers towards, despite the sense-making inherent to the theories of engagement.

Or, they could use intermediary organizations and spokespeople, where the message is no longer controlled directly by diplomats, but conveyed via stakeholders with better relationships and more credibility with target audiences. And perhaps, as Fisher’s use of the term “open source” suggests, it will cause more people to get involved and become stakeholders in foreign policy. It goes beyond traditional diplomacy, “to engaging on a genuinely symmetrical, peer-to-peer engagement aimed at engaging in collective effort with groups that were previously largely only considered as part of the target audience.” (Fisher)

DirecTV Commercials: Russia, You Have a Problem

Reposting from Global Chaos, yet again.

--

Not that it's anything new... and yet, it shows - once again - that Russia, along with several other former Communist/Socialist states, has a major image problem in the U.S. On numerous occasions before, I have discussed these stereotype issues on this blog, and this new DirecTV commercial only reiterates it all. (The commercial might have been around for quite a while, but since I do not own a TV - quite fortunately - I would ask for your understanding on the delayed response.)

Here's the "new" commercial, which seems to have been launched this month:



I have no words to explain how it is supposed to be related - if at all - to promoting a satellite TV service. But that aside: what images does it convey and what stereotypes of Russia, and Russians, is it playing on?

In a series of papers, Ivan Katchanovski has demonstrated the negative representation of Russia and some other former Soviet countries in American news coverage, as well as in popular culture. His analysis of a set of Hollywood movies has shown that:

"most of the movies, incorrectly present Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine as economically and technologically backward, extremely anti-American and anti-Semitic countries, which have pervasive “Russian mafia” and widespread female prostitution."

I couldn't not think of this excerpt when I saw this commercial "masterpiece".

Why is it a problem?

In his work on "imagology", William Chew has correctly pointed out that:

"[...] national stereotypes are generally rationalised by the spector as based on a supposedly objective reality, but [they also] tend to be omnipresent in comics, cinema, literature, computer games, public media, jokes and the like, and are constantly though not consciously invoked to confirm one’s auto-image, one’s national identity. Once established, they remain latent in the individual consciousness, or collective mentality, to be called upon when needed."

Just like on many occasions before, such representations only reinforce the not-so-positive images of Russia held by so many Americans, cashing in on long-held stereotypes. Unfortunately, the multitude of the people who will see this commercial will - most probably - never see a Russian ballet performance, for example, which will only help to perpetuate such negative attitudes.

This is a major issue to be addressed by Russia as a part of its public diplomacy effort. Of course, many would find this ingenious piece funny, and would argue that it works as great advertising... (for who, one might ask?) However, I wonder what the reaction would have been, had "the Russian" been replaced by an Israeli, for instance. (This is a rhetorical question, by the way. And yet, I would appreciate insights, if you're willing to share.)

In short, some more food for thought...

And just for your reference, here's the hideous "prequel", that has been on air for about a year now (to the best of my knowledge, that is).




I know you're dying to get DirecTV now, eh?
--

Does American Cultural Diplomacy have a pulse?

Mark Twain once said, “Culture is what is left after everything else is forgotten." Like Twain nailed it. It is impossible to be without culture. Richard T. Arndt, author of the "The Hush-Hush Debate: The Cultural Foundations of U.S. Public Diplomacy", discusses cultural diplomacy. He discusses its definition,

“To define cultural diplomacy, begin with cultural relations –which happen by themselves, a mosaic of human encounters fostered by films and media, trade, tourism, intermarriage, the arts of imagination, foreign study, books, neighborly gossip and chance encounters. Cultural diplomacy on the other hand only begins when a nation-state and its institutions step in and try to manage, to whatever extent they can, this natural two-way cultural flow so as better to advance broad national interests, preferably on both sides of borders. Some cultural relations are teaching opportunities, others learning situations; both processes educate the teachers as much as the student. The goal is to move from teacher-student relationships to collegiality.”

That said, American cultural diplomacy is highly reliant on its popular culture. But we have become too reliant on our inevitable popular culture to communicate to the world for us. While it is informal, it also convolutes the idea of American culture, which as John Brown points out is based on ideas rather than cultural tradition. Formal cultural diplomacy deserves greater attention and cognizance from the people, the government, and the private sector. Arndt points out that there used to be 200-odd libraries abroad and now we only have a dozen or so. Instead of cutting cultural staff overseas, US officials need to be increasing it. We may find that it would improve the international environment because of increased cultural understanding.

The US needs to be more careful of how other countries perceive us. For instance, while the movie Borat was a place branding nightmare in Kazakhstan, it also reflected poorly to some extent on Hollywood for its crude and culturally insensitive humor. Popular culture, as seen here, can prove to be a double edged sword- great for creating venue but it can also cause a lot of tension. In order to keep US cultural diplomacy alive, releases of movies like this one and formal acts of cultural diplomacy at US embassies around the world are the first step in creating a more solidified space to communicate through dialogue and collaboration with outside publics.

PD vs. CD

Richard T. Arndt, in his article entitled The Hush-Hush Debate: The Cultural Foundation of U.S. Public Diplomacy, draws a distinction between Cultural Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy calling for enlisting universities' role in bridging the gap between CD and PD.

PD, Arndt says, is the art of shaping, adjusting and communicating national policies to foreign governments and publics, while CD aims at a longer-range of policy to strengthen dialogue between a nation's intellectual and professional leaders and their students with counterparts in the world, based on the culture of the universities.

Academic and intellectual exchanges produce lasting effects in notions of nations, though in a slow process. The media of mass communication have been enlisted by nations to burnish their image because of their relatively quick effect. However, television and film industry always need a bit of exaggeration or hyperbole to emphasize its depiction of the society.

This is the problem that Hollywood creates an image of the U.S. which is far from the reality. Since its audience is global, Hollywood cannot focus on just American values or for that matter on any single nation's values to produce a widely-popular film. I think that is the reason that the mass media, including television, creates an image of a nation which may not be factual.

In such a situation Arndt's argument holds water that academia and students should be involved in the cultural diplomacy of the U.S.